The American president is not Aristotle's unmoved mover, but there have been episodes such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in which it was up to the chief executive to take actions of incalculable importance. It should therefore be no surprise that there is intense interest in understanding the qualities that each new chief executive brings to his (or, at some point, her) responsibilities. In what follows, I attempt to provide insight into the qualities that Barack Obama brings to his presidency by reviewing his formative years, pre-presidential years, and presidency as of November 2010. I conclude by discussing his strengths and weaknesses in the realms of public communication, organizational capacity, political skill, policy vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence (Greenstein 2009a; Greenstein 2009b; see also Barnes 2010).

In 2011, the Fulbright Scholar Program celebrates its 65th anniversary as America's preeminent international educational exchange program. In recognition of its international impact, this is a timely occasion to recall the program's history and note the roles of political scientists who have taught and conducted research around the globe as Fulbright Scholars.

Most colleges and universities stipulate that public service is a requirement for tenure and promotion. Yet many political science faculty and their respective administrators pay only lip service to this “third leg” of a scholarly career, relying on teaching and research to shape most career decisions. This reality is particularly surprising in the context of the political science discipline, given that the nature of our scholarship provides many public service opportunities. However, the norms and pressures of academia in general are at play. Why, then, should political scientists engage in public service, much less become serious “pracademics”?

As we write, the world is still in the grips of a financial crisis. Germany was one of the first countries to bail out a bank in July 2007. Then, in September 2007, the United Kingdom (UK) witnessed a run on a building society, Northern Rock, and the subsequent widespread nationalization of its banking sector. In the United States, the crisis led to a number of collapses among financial institutions, most famously Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the bail out of the insurance group, AIG, all in 2008.

Studies of mass political attitudes and behavior before the 1950s have been limited by a lack of high-quality, individual-level data. Fortunately, data from public opinion polls conducted during the late New Deal and World War II periods are available, although the many difficulties of working with these data have left them largely untouched for over 60 years. We compiled and produced readily usable computer files for over 400 public opinion polls undertaken between 1936 and 1945 by the four major survey organizations active during that period. We also developed a series of weights to ameliorate the problems introduced by the quota-sampling procedures employed at the time. The corrected data files and weights were released in May 2011. In this article, we briefly discuss the data and weighting procedures and then present selected time series determined using questions that were repeated on 10 or more surveys. The time series provide considerable leverage for understanding the dynamics of public opinion in one of the most volatile—and pivotal—eras in American history.

Surveys, experiments, large-N datasets and formal models are common instruments in the political scientist's toolkit. In-depth interviews and focus groups play a critical role in helping scholars answer important political questions. In contrast, participant observation techniques are an underused methodological approach. In this article, we argue that participant observation techniques have played and should continue to play a key role in advancing our understanding of political science. After demonstrating the use of these techniques, we offer readers advice for embarking upon participant observation research and explain how this approach should fit into a scholar's long-term career plans.

In his influential study of persistently democratic societies Lijphart (1999) argues for the general superiority of “consensus” over “majoritarian” institutions. Consensus institutions disperse power among distinct elements of a broad majority, while majoritarian institutions concentrate power in centralized institutions based on bare electoral majorities or pluralities. Lijphart finds that consensus institutions achieve levels of macroeconomic management and violence control similar to those of their majoritarian counterparts and perform considerably better representing various segments of society. In reflecting on his study, Lijphart offers the thought that highly effective consensus institutions would likely interact symbiotically with a “consensual political culture” (1999, 306). That is, Lijphart proposes that a consensual political culture, coupled with consensus institutions, would produce better government performance than consensus institutions. Yet he leaves the nature of such a culture unclear.

On July 2, 2010, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law a bill that reduced the act of soliciting a “crime against nature” for compensation from a felony to a misdemeanor. A felony conviction had meant a fine of up to $2,000, imprisonment for up to five years (“with or without hard labor”), or both. Because of the change in the crime's classification to a misdemeanor, those convicted of a first offense now face lesser penalties: a fine of up to $500, six months in jail, or both. Thus, the penalty for a first conviction for solicitation of “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal” for pay is the same as the penalty for a first conviction for prostitution not deemed “unnatural.” (Regular prostitution is defined in the Louisiana criminal code as “indiscriminate sexual intercourse with others for compensation.”) Another reform: Before this bill was enacted, anyone convicted of soliciting “unnatural carnal copulation” for compensation was required to register as a sex offender. Now, one is not deemed a sex offender until a second conviction.

A major complaint against cultural theories is that they cannot explain political change (Lockhart 1997). Cultural and institutional accounts of politics are also often seen as antagonistic (Chai 1997; Grendstad and Selle 1995; Lockhart 1999). The cultural theory (CT) developed by Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky, and others (see, e.g., Schwarz and Thompson 1990; Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky 1990), by contrast, offers a theory of culture that includes a theory of cultural change that integrates institutions into its explanation of change (Lockhart 1997, 1999; Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky 1990, 69–81; Wildavsky 1985). Moreover, CT can help specify the cultural conditions for sudden, big institutional and policy change, thereby, I argue, strengthening Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones's “punctuated equilibria” (PE) theory of change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993, 2002). The plausibility of this CT of PE change is illustrated in this article by using it to explain dramatic changes in forest and wildlife management in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) (building on Swedlow 2002a, b, 2003, 2007, 2009, and 2011a, b).

Although the study of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) politics appears to be widely accepted within political science, a recent survey of political scientists reported some skepticism about its legitimacy and scholarly worth (Novkov and Barclay 2010). This article examines potential concerns about LGBT studies and draws attention to the field's scholarly importance. The first part briefly addresses three objections to the study of LGBT politics that echo criticisms of the study and practice of identity politics. I argue that these objections do not withstand scrutiny, and that the case for studying the intersection of politics and sexuality within the discipline of political science is compelling. Sexuality and gender are fundamental aspects of human societies that reflect power relations and increasingly have become the object of public policy. The second part of the article examines the burgeoning literature on the politics of sexual orientation and identity. Beyond its intrinsic importance, LGBT politics contributes to a broader understanding of politics, power, social movements, public opinion, policymaking institutions, urban politics, and the relationship between science and public policy. Though not exhaustive, this review addresses many of the principal empirical and theoretical works in this area.

In November 2007, I helped found a blog, The Monkey Cage, with two of my colleagues, David Park and Lee Sigelman. This site joined a nascent political science blogosphere that is now composed of at least 80 blogs (Farrell and Sides 2010). The goals of The Monkey Cage are to publicize political science research and use this research to comment on current events. Although blogging is a promising way for scholars to promote their work to a larger audience, political scientists have been slow to take up this medium. To be sure, blogging is not without its challenges, particularly in terms of the time and energy needed to maintain a site. But blogging can also have its benefits by not only helping political science reach a broader audience, but also aiding individual scholars' research, teaching, and service goals.

We propose an experimental design particularly adapted to the study of individual behavior in collective action situations. The experimental protocol improves on the artificiality that is commonly present in lab and survey experiments to achieve a closer replication of the real-life conditions of such decisions while avoiding the high costs associated with field experiments. We exemplify this design by means of a study on strategic voting in elections.

Doing queer theory as political scientists enables us to approach central questions of the discipline in new and productive ways. This work makes possible innovative theoretical investigation of core concepts in political science such as power, justice, freedom, equality, and democracy. Queer theory can deepen the study of power by focusing on the lives, experiences, and institutions of GLBT people and communities. In the process, new frameworks are developed for the study of political theory more broadly. When done well, queer theory draws on the field's interdisciplinarity by bringing political scientists into conversation with other scholars on key matters that are best not bound by disciplinary borders. Similarly, queer theory at its best draws on the multiple perspectives developed in fields such as post-colonial, ethnic and critical race, feminist, class and ability, religious, and cultural studies.

During my 45 years as an academic, I have followed the admonition sometimes attributed to the legendary Jedi warrior Obi-Wan Kenobe that political scientists should “use [their] power for good and not for evil.” In this spirit, I have devoted substantial portions of my career to public service by providing strategic advice and campaign management to candidates for small state and local elective offices—state legislature, county commission, city clerk or treasurer, school board, and the like—and supporters of citizen ballot initiatives. These campaigns generally cannot afford the professional campaign assistance that is now virtually a necessity for winning elections at all levels of government.

In this article, we present a principled method for updating estimates of the ideology of Supreme Court justices based on each new vote they cast. We apply this method to the ideological positions of the newly appointed members of the Court: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor. This approach allows us to gain not only an estimate of justices' ideologies but also a greater understanding of the level of uncertainty we should have about these values, including how much we can learn about a new justice's views after he or she has cast a given number of votes on the Court.

Burgeoning literature within the social sciences studies the effects of culture on collective action. In economics, this topic can be found in the rising fields of behavioral economics (Camerer, Loewenstein, and Rabin 2004; Diamond, Vartiainen, and Jahnssonin 2007; Thaler 2007; Wilkinson 2007) and experimental economics (Friedman and Sunder 1994; Friedman 2004; Kagel and Roth 1995), where increasing notice is taken of individuals who do not behave uniformly as self-interested, rational utility maximizers. Instead, altruism (Andreoni and Miller 2008), reciprocity (Fehr and Gachter 2000; Fischbacher and Gachter 2010; Rabin 1993), social welfare maximization (Charness and Rabin 2002), and inequality aversion (Bolton and Ockenfels 2000; Fehr and Schmidt 1999) have been proposed as explanations for behavior in collective action situations.

This article demonstrates that racial prejudice was strongly related to the state-level nonblack vote in the 2008 presidential election, which featured the first African American candidate from a major party, Barack Obama. Additional tests show that while prejudice also explains shifts in the nonblack vote between 2004 and 2008, its influence on voting in the 2000 and 2004 elections was modest at best. Furthermore, there is no relationship between racial attitudes and state-level presidential approval of George Bush in 2008. Taken together, the findings suggest that prejudice does not have a pervasive influence on political behavior and opinion. Instead, the effect appears to have been triggered by the presence of Barack Obama on the ballot. Had there been less prejudice among the American voting public, Obama would likely have won an electoral vote landslide.

Over two decades ago, anthropologist Gayle Rubin began a now-classic article with a deceptively simple declaration: “The time has come to think about sex” (1984). Although Rubin was not the first thinker to place sex at the center of her work, her systematic sketch of Western sexual ideology made it possible to think about the political ramifications of sex in new and productive ways by disentangling the physical acts of sex from gender and sexuality (i.e., how we understand, interpret, and ascribe meaning to those acts). Among her many useful insights was the recognition that sex and sexuality are part of a hierarchical value system that serves as the basis for other forms of social, economic, and political power. Sex is the starting point of all human life and, consequently, sexuality subtends all other institutions from marriage to families, communities, states, and international organizations. What Foucault (1978) called biopower—the regulation of bodies, including sex—has continued to change and expand, giving rise to new forms of biopolitics—the regulation of populations and sexuality. Such regulations include moral policing and criminal sanctions, biomedical intervention, family and immigration laws, and a host of other tools that have tended to establish heterosexuality as the only normal and sanctioned sexual behavior. Regulating sex, and particularly reproduction, is an essential objective of the state because, ultimately, sex and reproduction are key to how the state regulates the fundamental element of its own composition: citizenship.

This symposium highlighted the relevance of the cultural theory (CT) pioneered by anthropologists Mary Douglas, Steve Rayner, and Michael Thompson and political scientists Aaron Wildavsky and Richard Ellis for explaining political phenomena. In this concluding article, we suggest ways in which CT can be further tested and developed. First, we describe how the theory has been applied thus far and some of the achievements of these applications. Then, we examine some of the challenges revealed by this research. Finally, we discuss ways of applying CT that promise to help meet these challenges. These methods include nesting case studies and combining case study and survey research, simulations, experiments, and approaches from social neuroscience.

In his seminal work Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy, Alexander George (1993) lamented the great divide between academia and the foreign policymaking community, arguing that greater interaction between scholars and policymakers would produce better policy. We share George's belief that scholars and practitioners each have much to offer the other. In fact, a wide spectrum of opportunities exists for scholars in the field of political science to engage in meaningful public service that can enhance every aspect of their careers, as well as contribute to international understanding.